E. Details of imposition of the Korean electricity charge of the entire building of this case and the details of the “electric charge” and “public payment” of the store of this case are as shown in the attached Table.

(Quantities of use = Quantity of inspection = Quantity of meter 】 50, volume of electricity = Quantity of meter 】 unit price 】 [applicable ground for recognition] / [The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap evidence 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, Eul evidence 1 through 8, 13, 14, and 17, the fact inquiry results on Korean power, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant collected the amount indicated in the “electric fee” column in the attached Table with the Plaintiff’s exclusive use portion, namely, the electric fee of the instant store. The Defendant collected the amount indicated in the attached “Difference” column (sum use volume* Han-dan) more than the reasonable electric fee (sum use volume*) by applying a unit price higher than the unit price of the Korean power charge, thereby making unjust enrichment of KRW 35,92,971 from April 2013 to October 2015.

B) Although the instant store was located on the first floor and did not use the stairs, passages, underground rooms, etc. of the building, the Defendant collected the amount indicated in the column for “public” in the attached Table from the Plaintiff as electricity charges for common areas, and unjustly gained profits from the Plaintiff from March 2013 to October 2015. 2) The amount collected by the Defendant as “public items” by the Defendant is the sum of the site rent of KRW 300,000 per month in which the Plaintiff installed two containers on the site of the instant building, and the amount of money collected by the Defendant as “public items” is not the electricity charges for common areas as asserted by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the amount of “public use” is not unjust enrichment.